The debate regarding the relationship between state sovereignty and the protection of the hu-man rights was at its peak during the 1990’s. Never again the world wanted to witness the atrocities committed in Rwanda, but at the same time some states argued in favor of a strict interpretation of the principle of state sovereignty and non-intervention. In 2001, ICISS was created – a commission with the aim to find consensus in the question of how the world should respond to mass atrocities committed by a state against their own people. Their work resulted in a report which presented a new view to the state sovereignty: “the responsibility to protect” (R2P). The purpose of this essay is to study the development and appliance of the concept since 2001. According to ICISS, every state has a responsibility to protect its citizens against mass atrocities. If the state is unwilling, or incapable to live up to this responsibility, the international community has the secondary responsibility to protect the people in that state. At the time of ICISS:s report, R2P had a limited legal value and could only be consid-ered as a soft law-principle consisting of arguments de lege ferenda. During the World Sum-mit in 2005, the principle evolved into an international normative concept consisting of the state’s opinio iuris, as R2P was implemented in two paragraphs in the Outcome Document. The definition of the concept now became narrower than the original principle, since R2P only applied to genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. The ap-pliance of R2P has been fairly inconsequent in practice. Although usus has not been reached in the area, R2P is now an established concept, and the debate has led from if the international community should act, to how it should act. In the future, regional organizations will probably play an extended role in the work for international peace. Interventions without the Security Council’s mandate is not a desirable outcome, but nevertheless a possibility if the Council doesn’t become more effective when facing mass atrocities and humanitarian disasters.

A big dilemma in the international politics is how the human rights can be combined with the states’ sovereignty. It has been a problem for a long time for the UN to know how to react when human rights are being violated and when to be able to use a military intervention. The government of Canada established a commission named ICISS to find a solution to this dilemma. The commission presented a report in the end of 2001 called Responsibility to Protect which was accepted as a norm of UN in 2005. The rapport offers solutions for the Security Council in cases of violations of human rights in foreign states. This thesis studies what this report means and examines if it is plausible and desirable from the perspectives of realism, constructivism and liberalism. To test the plausibility and the desirability is it also reviewed if the report can be understood in different ways. It turns out that realism finds the report mostly unplausible and not desirable. The liberalism regards the report as both plausible and desirable but finds that it is failing in some parts. The constructivism reckons the report as plausible but not necessarily desirable. It is also shown that the report can be understood in different ways which reduce its plausibility and desirability. However, the report offers possible solutions to a difficult dilemma and is a serious contribution to the conflict between the state and the individual.

<p>A big dilemma in the international politics is how the human rights can be combined with the states’ sovereignty. It has been a problem for a long time for the UN to know how to react when human rights are being violated and when to be able to use a military intervention.</p><p>The government of Canada established a commission named ICISS to find a solution to this dilemma. The commission presented a report in the end of 2001 called Responsibility to Protect which was accepted as a norm of UN in 2005. The rapport offers solutions for the Security Council in cases of violations of human rights in foreign states.</p><p>This thesis studies what this report means and examines if it is plausible and desirable from the perspectives of realism, constructivism and liberalism. To test the plausibility and the desirability is it also reviewed if the report can be understood in different ways.</p><p>It turns out that realism finds the report mostly unplausible and not desirable. The liberalism regards the report as both plausible and desirable but finds that it is failing in some parts. The constructivism reckons the report as plausible but not necessarily desirable. It is also shown that the report can be understood in different ways which reduce its plausibility and desirability.</p><p>However, the report offers possible solutions to a difficult dilemma and is a serious contribution to the conflict between the state and the individual.</p>

Denna uppsats har som syfte att besvara frågeställningen: Vilken roll spelade det humanitära inslaget som en motiverande faktor för Sveriges deltagande i Libyenkonflikten mellan den 2 april 2011 och den 24 oktober 2011? Fallstudie: Riksdagens protokoll 2010/11:81. Detta kommer att göras genom att olika analysmetoder appliceras på de tal som finns representerade i Riksdagens protokoll 2010/11:81. De analysmetoder som används är politisk diskursanalys (PDA), kvalitativ innehållsanalys, samt kritisk diskursanalys (CDA). Genom utförandet av dessa kommer uppsatsen att besvara i vilken utsträckning riksdagsledamöter använde humanitära aspekter i sin debatt om Sveriges beslut att delta i den internationella militära interventionen med namn Resolution 1973. Genom att utföra en PDA och en kvalitativ innehållsanalys kan vi finna de viktigaste argumenten samt påståendena för dessa i texten Riksdagens protokoll 2010/11:81. Därefter kommer en CDA att genomföras. Genom att göra detta kan den debatt som analyseras samt det resultat vi kom fram till genom utförandet av en PDA och en kvalitativ innehållsanalys placeras i en kontext. På så sätt kan en bedömning av politikernas argument och påståenden som de använde för att motivera Sveriges deltagande i Libyenkonflikten även granskas och jämföras med den kontext som rådde innan och under tidpunkten för debatten. Genom PDA och en kvalitativ innehållsanalys kommer uppsatsen att fastställa att de humanitära aspekterna var av stor betydelse och var den främsta motiverande faktorn i debatten om Sveriges deltagande i Libyenkonflikten. Genom implementeringen av en CDA kommer denna debatt att sättas i en kontext. En kontext där en stor mediakampanj mot den dåvarande Libyska ledaren Muammar Gaddafi skedde, och där flera framstående politiker tycktes påverka FN att implementera Skyldigheten att skydda (R2P) och interventionen mot Libyen, Resolution 1973. Baserat på debatten och den offentliga information som finns tillgänglig verkade det som att media, samt högt uppsatta politiker var en bidragande faktor till Resolution 1973. Därmed verkar det som att olika maktrelationer starkt påverkade den politiska arenan och de politiska beslut som togs i och med Libyenkonflikten 2011.